Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why did the SAUMs fail?

OK, so I realize this is Remington we’re talking about, so there’s that. But why did two really good cartridges fail?

Ammo too expensive?

Silly name?

Too much competition at 7mm and 30 cal?

Wrong rifles or twists?

IMHO, the SAUMs have a great blend of performance, balanced case size and configuration, and they both do a very good job of being able to extract a great deal of performance while also coming in at or under recoil-tolerance thresholds much better than their competitors. I like them better in almost every way than the 7mm WSM and 300 WSM and like them better in absolutely every way than the old standby 7mm Rem Mag and 300 Win Mag. In fact, I’d say a hunter equipped with an accurate, 22-24” sporter 7 SAUM (if it was popular) would be well-equipped for just about anything. And the case could have been used to create and commercially introduce many more useful variants from .24 - .35 cal.

I feel the combination of very expensive factory ammo and a stupid name did them in. In a time when newer shooters were far more open to common sense in cartridge design and performance (see: 7mm-08 then 6.5 Creedmoor), Remington decides to name a short cartridge an “Ultra Magnum.” I know I really didn’t give it much of a look because of that name.

What does the ‘Fire think?

No one bought them.

Winchester treed them out of the hole.

try to buy a Remington 700 titanium in 7saum or 300 saum.

Friend had a 300 SAUM....it had extremely heavy bolt lift on factory loads.....Rermington wouldn't fix it as he purchased it used.....I rebarreled it to .300 WSM.....nuff said!

Of all the short-fats the Remington 7mm was the best design, IMO. It had a decent neck for seating bigger/longer bullets, something lacking in the other short/fats.

That said, I love my Kimber Montanas in 300WSM and 325WSM.

Yes, JB, I do like the 325, maybe for no other reason than it's an 8mm.

Ammo. A longer mag box would have helped, too.

seattlesetters,

They failed because Winchester beat them to the starting gate, with the WSM cartridges that offered a little more powder room and hence velocity. Hunters didn't see any reason to buy rifles chambered for slower short, fat beltless "magnums."

The story I heard through the business was that Remington was offered the concept before Winchester, but turned it down, for whatever reasons, instead designing their own rounds. Winchester introduced the WSM's slightly before the SAUM's, which made it look like Remington was copy-catting, but copy-cat cartridges don't usually sell well if they don't offer velocity gains over the originals. (Witness the Ruger Compact Magnums, introduced several years after the WSM's and SAUM's.)

Of course, now the SAUM case is considered by some to be "better" than the WSM's, especially in short actions, due to offering more room for longer, high-BC bullets. The WSM's and SAUM's appeared over 15 years ago, before the long-range, high-BC trend became really hot. Now the 7mm SAUM necked down to 6.5 is one of the trendy rounds.

Another problem was the .280 Ackley Improved--introduced as a factory round by Nosler--did the same things as the 7mm SAUM in any action suitable for the .30-06--and there are zillions. The .280 AI already had plenty of traction among rifle loonies, so sold better.

Another problem was the 7mm SAUM, as far as factory rounds go, didn't do anything the .270 Winchester didn't. I know this from owning a 7mm SAUM for a number of years, and using it on big game from northern Canada to South Texas.

For the same reasons no one offers 200 different weight ball peen shop hammers.

Jordan,

As I pointed out earlier, the short, fat, beltless magnums appeared before the high-BC, long-range trend really started. They were designed to work in existing, industry-standard short magazines.

"Winchester" (or whatever you want to call the company known as Winchester these days) recognized this not too long ago. The "Portuguese" M70 in .300 WSM I purchased a couple years ago has a 3.05 inch magazine, instead of the industry standard 2.84" short-action magazine used in the first M70's.

WSM’s didn’t either, with the exception of the 270 and 300. The wssm’s were worse than the saum line... the RUM line fizzled perty good as well...

Judman,

One of the interesting things about the WSSM's was that Winchester asked a number of gun writers (and other folks) about the concept before they introduced them, or had even finalized the design. This was when the .300 WSM was the hottest-selling rifle cartridge on the planet, and they wanted to keep the ball rolling.

At least one writer suggested a .22-caliber short-fat might do pretty well, IF they used a fast-twist barrel to stabilize high-BC bullets, because the .22/6mm Remington (aka .224 Texas Trophy Hunter) was reasonably popular at the time. But apparently they couldn't quite bring themselves to do it, instead using a 1-10 twist for the 64-grain softpoints they loaded as "deer bullets."

Of course, the WSSM's also required a totally different, short bolt-action, meaning nobody could rebarrel conventional bolt actions to any of the WSSM rounds. So they also cut off one primary market for such specialized rounds, the real rifle loonies who want to "build" their own rifles.

The .223 WSSM might have had a chance if it had appeared with a 1-9 or 1-8 twist, because it had more powder capacity than any other commercial .22 centerfire. But the .243 and .25 didn't do anything existing 6mm and .25 rounds didn't do.

A lot of cartridges make sense but the ammo manufacturers price it to die.

Exactly. If they were pumping out $30 boxes of ammo and you could fit a 162 in the magbox and not jump, it'd be more popular. Now you feel like you won the lottery when you score a bag of rp virgin brass with the right headstamp.

I have a pretty nice 7saum and did a fair amount of shooting with the 150 etip and 162 amax. Mine is M7 with a McM Edge stock in Classic. I love the balance of it for shooting off a pack. Have killed a fair amount of mountain bucks with it.

My dad bought a stainless 700 in the 7 right when they came out. A guy at an RMEF banquet won it and dad bought it from him for a song. It shoots good and exactly duplicates 280AI speeds with book loads. He’s killed a bunch of bucks with it and one grizzly. Nothing wrong with it but when he runs out of brass I’ll probably spin a 300wsm tube on it so he can buy shells at Academy if he wants to.

Winchester found out by leak that Remington was developing the short mag and went on a secret crash course to beat Remington's introduction with their own version. It was wrapped in secrecy and code named "Swordfish". Winchester beat them to the draw.

Calvin,

As I pointed out to Jordan, the 7mm SAUM appeared in 2002, before all but a very few handloaders were concerned with seating high-BC bullets "out to the lands." It failed in the marketplace within 3 years, long before most hunters had even heard of such a problem--or many of the high-BC hunting bullets of today existed.

This is very true. I happen to have a 7saum in a Remington model 7 and the box length is going to be perfect for the 6.5-243wssm.
Just broke it down to box up and go get one of the last Obermeyer tubes before my smiths stock runs out and they become hens teeth.
Plan is a .289 neck and 8.4 T at 22” with a little sharkgill break so the kiddos can shoot it. Going to add a M16 extractor to jerk the little suckers out.
Should give 260ai velocity. I will see.

Reload, neck down those 300's to 7mm...

DF